SynthesisNeuropsychology review2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Empirical Evidence for the Simple Bayesian Model of Autism.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational mechanisms of perception in autism revealed using games inspired by rodent operant tasks.Science advances · 2026Article
- Autism-ness Does Not Exist, but Autism Does, Part 2: The Perception-Language Chimera Model Accounts for the Nature, Chronology, and Interrelation of Autistic Signs.Autism & developmental language impairmentsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Bayesian framework conceptualizes human perception as a process of probabilistic inference, where the brain integrates prior expectations with incoming sensory evidence to construct a mental model of the world. Within this framework, several distinct theories-collectively termed the "simple Bayesian model"-suggest that perceptual atypicalities in autism stem from an imbalance between the precision of prior beliefs and sensory input. This study presents a systematic review and the first meta-analysis to evaluate empirical evidence for the simple Bayesian model. We synthesized 24 effect sizes from 23 eligible studies using a random-effects model to test its core predictions: that autistic individuals exhibit universally "broader" priors and/or heightened sensory precision compared to non-autistic controls. We found a significant, small-to-moderate overall effect in the predicted direction (Hedge's g = 0.37). However, heterogeneity across studies was large and significant and was not explained by any of the examined moderators: prior type (structural vs. contextual), stimulus type (social vs. nonsocial), task setting (implicit vs. explicit), cognitive domain (higher-level cognition vs. perception), or participant characteristics. Given the significant unexplained heterogeneity, our findings offer only limited support for a universal "simple Bayesian model" of autism. We conclude that future research should move beyond the simple Bayesian model to investigate more sophisticated, hierarchical Bayesian accounts of autism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40576893What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.